The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

The Anthropic Evangelical Alien

Submitted by Tomcat on January 7, 2007 - 9:51am.

Thanks to Ross Raffin for this essay!

Perhaps the strangest line of reasoning I have heard to show the existence of God is the Anthropic, or fine-tuning, argument. Once I made the mistake of reading George Smith’s Atheism: A Case Against God in public and within minutes was approached by a born-again. Before I could tell her that I wasn’t at all interested in debating the issue, she launched into natural theology. I respect metaphysical faith in God, but these attempts at giving evidence for a metaphysical concept simply depress me.

In A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawkings accurately noted that if many variables, such as the charge of an electron, were slightly different after the big bang, we could not possibly exist. He goes on to say that this possibly is an act of God. It seems that apologetics stop reading at this point. He goes on to define why God is not necessary.

Necessity is a key word in natural theology. In the cosmological, intelligent design, and nearly every other argument for God, there is the equivocation of possibility for necessity. The fact that it is possible that God did something is not evidence that God did something. The fine-tuning argument falls prey to a more familiar apologetic fallacy, circular reasoning.

Assume, for the moment, that somehow the variables of the big bang were altered slightly, not in way that would re-collapse the universe but would simply make life in our galaxy impossible. On some other planet in some other galaxy, over billions of years a sentient species of aliens arise. Using the logic of the fine-tuning argument, those aliens could easily say “our god exists because if the universe had been slightly different, we wouldn’t exist.”

This hopefully makes the fallacy clear. The fine-tuning argument only works if one assumes humans are the goal, and not by-product, of the universe. The apologetic says “if variables were different humans wouldn’t exist.” I nod my head, waiting for them to make an actual point.

The only way to argue that humans are the teleological goal of the universe is to presume a teleological force behind it i.e. God. If God is not presupposed, then the “fine-tuning” argument makes no sense. The very name of the argument “fine-tuning” betrays this problem. Fine-tuning for what? How would the universe tune for anything unless it had a goal in mind?

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...

Assume, for the moment, that somehow the variables of the big bang were altered slightly, not in way that would re-collapse the universe but would simply make life in our galaxy impossible.

heh, well, considering that any sustained deviation compunds the effect so that it cumulatively worsens to the point of running away... I'd say, good luck with that. But let's go ahead and accept your extremely implausible assumption... just for the sake of shits and giggles...

On some other planet in some other galaxy, over billions of years a sentient species of aliens arise. Using the logic of the fine-tuning argument, those aliens could easily say “our god exists because if the universe had been slightly different, we wouldn’t exist.”

1) You seem to be under the false impression that the anthropic physics only applies to one planet in one galaxy, but had you read Dawkins book, then you would know that it actually applies to a whole "layer" of galaxies that evolved via the same physics and I would very much suggest that you read this:

2) If you change the constants of nature, then you will necessarily destroy the balanced nature of the rest of the anthropic coincidences, so the aliens of your implausible world would not live in a "fine-tuned" universe, and could not make the same type of "special" observations that Dicke, Carter, and others have made about their own.

This hopefully makes the fallacy clear. The fine-tuning argument only works if one assumes humans are the goal, and not by-product, of the universe. The apologetic says “if variables were different humans wouldn’t exist.” I nod my head, waiting for them to make an actual point.

Luckily for you then, I'm an atheist...

Fine-tuning for what? How would the universe tune for anything unless it had a goal in mind?

What makes you think that intrinsic finality requires a "mind".... ?... because you're, well, wrong, yet again. "Necessity" is in of itself the "mother" of inventions, so any good physical need for humans to arise, is all the "goal" that you need.

This is how the physics for the anthropic principle actually applies to this debate: